Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

Laird, you and I are having a discussion, I am not being cross-examined by you - I answer as I see fit.
Sure, you can and should answer as you see fit, but on the other hand, a discussion is not just the participants saying whatever they feel like. If we're not responding meaningfully to one another, then it's not a discussion, it's two people talking at each other.

Case in point:

Mention of the Cuban Missile Crisis is at the heart of this
At the heart of what? It has nothing to do with the claim which I'd questioned and to which you offered it as part of a response: that Donald Trump intends to close overseas military bases.

Maybe you mean it's at the heart of the conflict in Syria? I'm no expert, and wasn't even alive at the time of the Crisis, but that seems like a pretty overblown claim. In any case, the idea that Donald Trump has acted effectively to defuse the risk of nuclear war is bizarre. I mean, tweets like "Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nicer and new and ‘smart.’" aren't putting out fires - they're fanning the flames[*] - and, again, assuming the chemical attacks were faked, then the less risky choice would have been to have said so, not to have mounted an attack in a situation you believe to be as unstable as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't have it both ways: that this situation is as precarious as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet at the same time that it is reasonable to mount an attack (however "symbolic") in the situation.

[*] Not to mention being disappointing and pathetic coming from a world leader. It's hard to imagine how anybody could respect this type of dick-waving.
 
Maybe you mean it's at the heart of the conflict in Syria? I'm no expert, and wasn't even alive at the time of the Crisis, but that seems like a pretty overblown claim. In any case, the idea that Donald Trump has acted effectively to defuse the risk of nuclear war is bizarre. I mean, tweets like "Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nicer and new and ‘smart.’" aren't putting out fires - they're fanning the flames[*] - and, again, assuming the chemical attacks were faked, then the less risky choice would have been to have said so, not to have mounted an attack in a situation you believe to be as unstable as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't have it both ways: that this situation is as precarious as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet at the same time that it is reasonable to mount an attack (however "symbolic") in the situation.
I don't know how much of the concept of 'Deep State' you take on board. Jim Smith can give you loads of links on the subject. The idea is that recent presidents have had a group somewhere in the US administration pushing for confrontation with Russia and constant US involvement in the Middle East. I don't know if they would like to actually push the button, or just create a situation of continual attrition, whether these people exist or not, they certainly seem to get their way! According to that point of view, the Syrian civil war was hugely inflamed by the US training and arming extremists opposed to Assad. I think I am right that Donald Trump stopped, or is in the process of stopping support for these fighters

The Russians are quite clear that the people they are fighting in the various opposition strongholds in Syria, are barely distinguishable from ISIS, and that the situation in those places is essentially like that in Mosul, where if you remember, the civilian population was held hostage by a gang of ISIS extremists, causing huge loss of life by the time the US cleared them out.

I believe this, because the whole problem with the US support for fighters in Syria (instigated by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state) was that they were arming utterly religiously extreme terrorists - much as they did back in the days when extremists pushed out the Soviets in Afghanistan.

You need to realise just how many countries have been messed up by US aggression - Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Libya......... Ask yourself what all that destruction was for!

Thus you have extremists motivated by hate like the people who will blow themselves up in the West to kill as many people as possible. I don't know whether one should blame those men, or just the people who train and motivate them to do these things, but they want to win at all costs. When Obama announced that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line in Syria, the extremists in Syria saw that creating a fake attack in the areas they control, could bring the US back into major action in Syria against Assad.

That, I think, is why there have been a string of militarily trivial chemical attacks, supposedly caused by Assad to try to pull the US into the war there.

I am sure the president understands all that, but he has to govern in a situation where he is offered no respect, the news organisations don't want to chase the facts about Syria - just to bash Trump - and some of the people in his own party support the crazy deep state concept.

"Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nicer and new and ‘smart.’
" wasn't meant for Russian consumption - because negotiations were obviously going on to make sure those attacks killed nobody - but to try to wake up everyone else to the danger of a war with Russia - probably ending up with nuclear weapons.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a point when the world was extremely close to nuclear war - we all escaped by a whisker, but it was a time when everyone waited anxiously for each news bulletin, and prayed, and didn't talk too much about what seemed to be about to happen.

I think Donald Trump wants a peaceful resolution of the various stand-offs - think of North Korea, and unless I come to the conclusion that that is wrong, he is the guy I want in the White House.

David
 
I think I am right that Donald Trump stopped, or is in the process of stopping support for these fighters
OK, well, perhaps you'd like to research that and get back to us. Let us know if and to what extent you were right, with supporting evidence.

You need to realise just how many countries have been messed up by US aggression
I would if I hadn't already realised it. I'm simply wondering what Donald Trump is doing to change this. I posed the question earlier, for example, as to how many overseas bases he's closed so far, and what his further schedule for closures is, but all I got in response was crickets...

Thus you have extremists motivated by hate like the people who will blow themselves up in the West to kill as many people as possible. I don't know whether one should blame those men, or just the people who train and motivate them to do these things, but they want to win at all costs.
And why do they hate? Could it possibly be related to the fact that (your words, with which I agree) their "countries have been messed up by US aggression"?

[T]he president [...] has to govern in a situation where he is offered no respect
When he behaves respectfully, maybe he will command respect in turn. Compulsively and flagrantly lying to the citizens of his country and to the world at large is not respectful behaviour. It insults us all.

"Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nicer and new and ‘smart.’
" wasn't meant for Russian consumption - because negotiations were obviously going on to make sure those attacks killed nobody - but to try to wake up everyone else to the danger of a war with Russia - probably ending up with nuclear weapons.
Oh boy. The contortions keep coming...

he is the guy I want in the White House.
What, over all other possible candidates?
 
Just as I have never heard a compelling argument for banning gun ownership outright from the "left", I still have not heard a compelling argument for public ownership of assault rifles from the "right".
Obviously, I don’t come here often anymore, so this is way outta left field I’m sure.

But I have a few questions of my own. First, are you an American? Second, have you ever A) owned a firearm or B) used a firearm?

I ask these questions because all two often I find that for the first, most non-Americans take issue with our second amendment. I won’t go into details as to why they may misunderstand it, the culture surrounding it and why most people, especially foreigners, are usually flat out wrong about it since I haven’t read the entire thread, nor am I going to. So I’m not going to go into a lecture on this subject. I’ll leave it at what I’ve already stated here.

For the second question, I’ve found that almost every time I’ve come across people who are either anti-gun (what a strange thing that is) or pro-restrictions have never even so much as handled a firearm. IMO, they fear that which they do not understand.

Which brings me to answering your question. The second amendment and primary purpose of any firearm is not hunting and it’s not entirely for self protection. Those are both auxiliary functions. The second A is pretty clear. The purpose of the right to bear arms is specifically to fight a tyrannical government. Full. Stop.

I’ve seen numerous debates about this, most of them using appeal to emotion, strawman or red herring arguments.

I wish I could remember which book it was that I read this in, maybe it was Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, maybe it was Collapse by Jared Dimond, but the idea was that a populace, to resist tyranny, must always remain as equally capable of warfare as the government. Meaning, the government should never be allowed to outpace its populace with regards to weaponry. Unfortunately, ours has. However, that ignores the fact that geurilla warfare is effective. Hence why Vietnam was such a damned quagmire. Even advanced weaponry and tactics by the US didn’t assure a victory.

I’m sure the response to this will be something along the lines of “you idiot militia prepper”. Well, I’m not. But that doesn’t mean I cannot understand the primary purpose of a firearm. It honestly is comical that people believe that guns were invented or continue to exist for “hunting purposes “. Lol, completely ridiculous and ignorant.
 
Let me reiterate what I said once again because you can't seem to comprehend my posts.

I'm not playing your silly "here first" game because I DON'T CARE WHO WAS IN AMERICA FIRST.

Do you understand that?
Funny how more evidence is coming out that there were people here nearly 20k years ago. Long before the so-called natives. But yeah, this “I was here first” nonsense is just that, nonsense. Humanity is and always was about conquest and might makes right. Not saying I agree, however, those who were not capable of defending what they built were eradicated. If this happens, it wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last. Fight or succumb. That has always been the rule. Why do people think this has changed?

Has it occurred to any Europeans here that the reason you are losing your culture, your land is because you refuse to fight? Because you have been psychologically neutered by weaponised compassion? Probably not. Can’t wait for the hate to roll in for that comment! Doesn’t make it untrue though.

And before I’m called a racist, one of the greatest conquerers to ever live was Genghis Kahn. Not a white man.
 
I am an American citizen. When it comes to heredity I suggest people look into actual family history. Stories involving parents and grandparents and the actual genealogy. What sort of work they did and talents they had. Lumping us all into white, black, red, yellow, and brown is way too simplistic.

We don't have to participate in the dialectic manufactured by the schools and the media. The schools and mainstream media want to lump everyone with white skin into a single category and then create a white versus people of color dichotomy. Participating in this whatever ones race is would neglect the actual stories of ones ancestors that made them unique as individuals.

I do think that people who are classified as white do have a right to speak against anti-white speech. However I don't think that doing this means one has to participate in far right politics. Regardless ones personal feelings on various ethnic groups(such as Russians, Jews, African Americans, Jamaicans, Levantine people, or Arabs) I don't think it would be wise for a person who is speaking out against anti-white speech to also speak against other racial groups or to advocate for segregation.

The main time I encounter this hard white/non-white understanding of the world is in response to media and school propaganda or internet propaganda, stuff that can generally be classified as either far right or far left. If society is just left alone to develop naturally then these racial issues sort of work themselves out naturally.

I am not saying race is meaningless or that one should totally ignore race when looking at the world but at some point Americans do have to start promoting the concept of an American ethnic identity. The idea that we are Americans.
The only problem with that is, the overall culture is anti-white. I honestly am not going to even bother going into why that is true, nor am I interested in warding off “you’re a racist” nonsense. I’ve heard it all and have come to the conclusion that whites are their own worst enemy. And when push comes to shove, every person here that is of any race other than white WILL “protect their own”. If/when that day comes. I know, I know you all think “I’m not like that”. But I would bet my life that what I just said is true.

Unfortunately, I think they will succeed. I think white people will be eradicated or nearly so. Again, mostly because we are our own worst enemy. But hey, I shouldn’t want to protect myself, my family or my heritage, right? Nooo, no, nope. That would be racist.

Funny that, is BLM racist? La Raza? What about the ADL? Why are all these other races allowed to...no...encouraged, to fight for their own group interests, but not whites? Why are white people racist for doing what every other racial group does?
 
Obviously, I don’t come here often anymore, so this is way outta left field I’m sure.

But I have a few questions of my own. First, are you an American? Second, have you ever A) owned a firearm or B) used a firearm?

I ask these questions because all two often I find that for the first, most non-Americans take issue with our second amendment. I won’t go into details as to why they may misunderstand it, the culture surrounding it and why most people, especially foreigners, are usually flat out wrong about it since I haven’t read the entire thread, nor am I going to. So I’m not going to go into a lecture on this subject. I’ll leave it at what I’ve already stated here.

For the second question, I’ve found that almost every time I’ve come across people who are either anti-gun (what a strange thing that is) or pro-restrictions have never even so much as handled a firearm. IMO, they fear that which they do not understand.

Which brings me to answering your question. The second amendment and primary purpose of any firearm is not hunting and it’s not entirely for self protection. Those are both auxiliary functions. The second A is pretty clear. The purpose of the right to bear arms is specifically to fight a tyrannical government. Full. Stop.

I’ve seen numerous debates about this, most of them using appeal to emotion, strawman or red herring arguments.

I wish I could remember which book it was that I read this in, maybe it was Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, maybe it was Collapse by Jared Dimond, but the idea was that a populace, to resist tyranny, must always remain as equally capable of warfare as the government. Meaning, the government should never be allowed to outpace its populace with regards to weaponry. Unfortunately, ours has. However, that ignores the fact that geurilla warfare is effective. Hence why Vietnam was such a damned quagmire. Even advanced weaponry and tactics by the US didn’t assure a victory.

I’m sure the response to this will be something along the lines of “you idiot militia prepper”. Well, I’m not. But that doesn’t mean I cannot understand the primary purpose of a firearm. It honestly is comical that people believe that guns were invented or continue to exist for “hunting purposes “. Lol, completely ridiculous and ignorant.
I get that the intention of the 2nd amendment was to ensure better government.

How’s that working out?
 
Obviously, I don’t come here often anymore, so this is way outta left field I’m sure.

But I have a few questions of my own. First, are you an American? Second, have you ever A) owned a firearm or B) used a firearm?

I ask these questions because all two often I find that for the first, most non-Americans take issue with our second amendment. I won’t go into details as to why they may misunderstand it, the culture surrounding it and why most people, especially foreigners, are usually flat out wrong about it since I haven’t read the entire thread, nor am I going to. So I’m not going to go into a lecture on this subject. I’ll leave it at what I’ve already stated here.

For the second question, I’ve found that almost every time I’ve come across people who are either anti-gun (what a strange thing that is) or pro-restrictions have never even so much as handled a firearm. IMO, they fear that which they do not understand.

Which brings me to answering your question. The second amendment and primary purpose of any firearm is not hunting and it’s not entirely for self protection. Those are both auxiliary functions. The second A is pretty clear. The purpose of the right to bear arms is specifically to fight a tyrannical government. Full. Stop.

I’ve seen numerous debates about this, most of them using appeal to emotion, strawman or red herring arguments.

I wish I could remember which book it was that I read this in, maybe it was Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, maybe it was Collapse by Jared Dimond, but the idea was that a populace, to resist tyranny, must always remain as equally capable of warfare as the government. Meaning, the government should never be allowed to outpace its populace with regards to weaponry. Unfortunately, ours has. However, that ignores the fact that geurilla warfare is effective. Hence why Vietnam was such a damned quagmire. Even advanced weaponry and tactics by the US didn’t assure a victory.

I’m sure the response to this will be something along the lines of “you idiot militia prepper”. Well, I’m not. But that doesn’t mean I cannot understand the primary purpose of a firearm. It honestly is comical that people believe that guns were invented or continue to exist for “hunting purposes “. Lol, completely ridiculous and ignorant.
Well, many Anarcho-Leftists have nothing against guns - for the simple reason: they want to see the day when the people will rise up, en masse, and start an armed revolution against the state and the corporations.

One's position on the gun ownership essentially reflects one's position on the state's legitimacy (and trustworthiness), and subsequently, on the justifiability of the armed insurrection against it. It is anarchist-versus-statist rather than Left-versus-Right (as it is commonly but falsely presented).
 
I just can’t understand the uproar being made by some white people right now. There is no “white genocide” happening in America. Besides certain dark corners of the internet, nobody is hating on white people. I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “ white people can’t even defend their rights to exist without being called supremacist”. Why are white people having to defend their right to exists? Whose saying white people can’t exist? You made like three blanket statements that do not apply to minority activists, like myself, and those fighting for equal rights. White people have a culture and can exist. Wormwood is arguing(and I agree with him) that white people in America have no “right” to claim America. Which makes perfect sense considering that it was stolen from the Native Americans. Technically, any race besides the Native Americans(and a few blacks who lived in America precolonial times) have no right to claim America as theirs. You can call America your home and have pride living here. I certainly do. But to say that it belongs to white people somehow and white people are allowed to claim it and it solely was built on “white values”, is absolutely ludicrous. Your last paragraph is certainly made of the “hateful rhetoric” that you imply your against. Actually, it reminds me of The Charlottesville Protests with the white supremacist protesters...
So full of nonsense. Nothing was stolen, that’s absurd. Dark corners of the Internet? Like Duke university professors tweeting “I’m dreaming of a white genocide”? And nothing being done about it? Like the article in the University of Texas school paper titled White People, Your DNA is an Abomination? Like the University of Texas professor who said “white people just need to die”? BTW, the student who wrote the article was not suspended, expelled or even disciplined in any way. The professor, same thing. Not so much as a “hey, don’t say that, k”. Like the constant, non-stop “white kids not allowed” garbage going on on college campuses, everywhere. Not just a few. EVERYWHERE. Even my local shitty community college threatened a white girl with expulsion for questioning why “safe spaces” for every other race was allowed but not for white kids. I wish I was making that up.

My daughter see’s the anti-white rhetoric EVERY DAY on social media. She’s actually legitimately worried, and no, this was not me indoctrinating her, she see’s it all the time. She’s lost friends, good friends, because she was white. Again I WISH I was making this up.

This entire thread is a testament to what white people are up against. I find it interesting that you can even be a “minority activist” and consider that a virtue. But what if I said I was a “white activist”? Well, gee, I’d probably be called a Nazi. Literally Hitler.

One guy, and me, dared to speak up in defense of white people, and look at the dog piling. If it was ANY OTHER RACE doing exactly the same, it would be praised as virtuous. This is what things have come to. And for any white virtue signalers out there whose reflex response is to hate the words I’ve typed here, look to The Raven’s words. White people STOLE this land. I’m guessing in their mind, they deserve to have it back. My question is, Raven, would you use violence to accomplish this goal? I’m guessing you would. This is the state of things. Ignore it all you want as the civilization your ancestors built is burnt to the ground around you.

But, hey Raven, you’re future progeny probably won’t have to worry about the white devil in a few generations. Far too many of us are just eager as hell to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of social justice.
 
I get that the intention of the 2nd amendment was to ensure better government.

How’s that working out?
Like shit because people’s minds have been rotted by the garbage fed to them in entertainment and what passes for “education” these days. And because we (Americans) have become weak and slovenly. We have allowed ourselves and our cultured to be degenerated and destroyed from the inside out. We are now a culture of weak minded, weak bodied, weak willed people.
 
Well, many Anarcho-Leftists have nothing against guns - for the simple reason: they want to see the day when the people will rise up, en masse, and start an armed revolution against the state and the corporations.

One's position on the gun ownership essentially reflects one's position on the state's legitimacy (and trustworthiness), and subsequently, on the justifiability of the armed insurrection against it. It is anarchist-versus-statist rather than Left-versus-Right (as it is commonly but falsely presented).
Sorry, not true. It’s not statist v. anarchist. Especially if you’re speaking of Antifa. Antifa ARE statist. They just don’t realize the idiocy of “anarcho-communism”. As if you can have a society that is simultaneously anarchist and communist, lol! You are right about the SOME of the right wing. Some call themselves national socialists. I don’t agree with them either. But not all who would fight for the second A are right-wing statists. Neither is there no such thing as a left wing second a supporter. It’s not a dichotomy. Not at all.
 
So full of nonsense. Nothing was stolen, that’s absurd. Dark corners of the Internet? Like Duke university professors tweeting “I’m dreaming of a white genocide”? And nothing being done about it? Like the article in the University of Texas school paper titled White People, Your DNA is an Abomination? Like the University of Texas professor who said “white people just need to die”? BTW, the student who wrote the article was not suspended, expelled or even disciplined in any way. The professor, same thing. Not so much as a “hey, don’t say that, k”. Like the constant, non-stop “white kids not allowed” garbage going on on college campuses, everywhere. Not just a few. EVERYWHERE. Even my local shitty community college threatened a white girl with expulsion for questioning why “safe spaces” for every other race was allowed but not for white kids. I wish I was making that up.

My daughter see’s the anti-white rhetoric EVERY DAY on social media. She’s actually legitimately worried, and no, this was not me indoctrinating her, she see’s it all the time. She’s lost friends, good friends, because she was white. Again I WISH I was making this up.

This entire thread is a testament to what white people are up against. I find it interesting that you can even be a “minority activist” and consider that a virtue. But what if I said I was a “white activist”? Well, gee, I’d probably be called a Nazi. Literally Hitler.

One guy, and me, dared to speak up in defense of white people, and look at the dog piling. If it was ANY OTHER RACE doing exactly the same, it would be praised as virtuous. This is what things have come to. And for any white virtue signalers out there whose reflex response is to hate the words I’ve typed here, look to The Raven’s words. White people STOLE this land. I’m guessing in their mind, they deserve to have it back. My question is, Raven, would you use violence to accomplish this goal? I’m guessing you would. This is the state of things. Ignore it all you want as the civilization your ancestors built is burnt to the ground around you.

But, hey Raven, you’re future progeny probably won’t have to worry about the white devil in a few generations. Far too many of us are just eager as hell to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of social justice.

Again, those are the extremists saying those things. I can just as easily go find people tweeting racist things about minorities. It is useless to do so.

I feel bad for your daughter, I mean that sincerely. But, I am homeschooled now from all of the racist bullshit I had to put up with at my school. It isn’t just white people getting bullied for their race. Once again, anecdotes don’t really prove anything.

Go ahead and say you’re a white activist. I honestly don’t care. And no, I won’t call you a Nazi nor are you “literally Hitler”.

Nobody is mad that you are “defending white people”. If you are referring to Charlie, I’m sorry but he wasn’t defending white people. He was spouting complete nonsense and I was trying to engage in a discusiion with him. He decided to ignore me like Michael. I am willing to discuss ideas, it’s just hard to do that when you are being ignored. Don’t make a strawman argument on a hypothetical situation. You don’t know what would happen if it were any other race because it hasn’t happened. Unless, of course, you are able to access the multiverse. White people DID steal the land. I’m not understanding how else they got it. Native Americans didn’t just hand it over. Again, don’t use a strawman argument. I am a pacifist, so no, I don’t agree with violence from anyone. I feel like like that last sentence is a bit of a hyperbole.

First off, not that it matters, I’m not having kids. Whites are still the majority in America, so where are they going exactly? If any race is going “extinct” in America it would be the black population because they are the minority of all races. Are you implying that there is going to be a white genocide? So if a white person agree with social justice, they are sacrificing themselves? I’m honestly confused about that last sentence.
 
Like shit because people’s minds have been rotted by the garbage fed to them in entertainment and what passes for “education” these days. And because we (Americans) have become weak and slovenly. We have allowed ourselves and our cultured to be degenerated and destroyed from the inside out. We are now a culture of weak minded, weak bodied, weak willed people.
It has been proven that violence in the entertainment industry, specifically video games, does not cause violence in people. I do agree, however, that there is a problem with the education system. How is American culture being destroyed? Actually, what even is American culture? We are a melting pot of various cultures and races, so really there isn’t just one. I’m not even going to touch that last sentence.
 
Obviously, I don’t come here often anymore, so this is way outta left field I’m sure.

But I have a few questions of my own. First, are you an American? Second, have you ever A) owned a firearm or B) used a firearm?

I ask these questions because all two often I find that for the first, most non-Americans take issue with our second amendment. I won’t go into details as to why they may misunderstand it, the culture surrounding it and why most people, especially foreigners, are usually flat out wrong about it since I haven’t read the entire thread, nor am I going to. So I’m not going to go into a lecture on this subject. I’ll leave it at what I’ve already stated here.

For the second question, I’ve found that almost every time I’ve come across people who are either anti-gun (what a strange thing that is) or pro-restrictions have never even so much as handled a firearm. IMO, they fear that which they do not understand.

Which brings me to answering your question. The second amendment and primary purpose of any firearm is not hunting and it’s not entirely for self protection. Those are both auxiliary functions. The second A is pretty clear. The purpose of the right to bear arms is specifically to fight a tyrannical government. Full. Stop.

I’ve seen numerous debates about this, most of them using appeal to emotion, strawman or red herring arguments.

I wish I could remember which book it was that I read this in, maybe it was Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, maybe it was Collapse by Jared Dimond, but the idea was that a populace, to resist tyranny, must always remain as equally capable of warfare as the government. Meaning, the government should never be allowed to outpace its populace with regards to weaponry. Unfortunately, ours has. However, that ignores the fact that geurilla warfare is effective. Hence why Vietnam was such a damned quagmire. Even advanced weaponry and tactics by the US didn’t assure a victory.

I’m sure the response to this will be something along the lines of “you idiot militia prepper”. Well, I’m not. But that doesn’t mean I cannot understand the primary purpose of a firearm. It honestly is comical that people believe that guns were invented or continue to exist for “hunting purposes “. Lol, completely ridiculous and ignorant.

I don’t even understand how a firearm would protect you from a tyrannical government. The government has access to powerful weapons and firearms that civilians can’t get. Any firearm a civilian has isn’t going to stop the army from breaking down your door.
 
It has been proven that violence in the entertainment industry, specifically video games, does not cause violence in people. I do agree, however, that there is a problem with the education system. How is American culture being destroyed? Actually, what even is American culture? We are a melting pot of various cultures and races, so really there isn’t just one. I’m not even going to touch that last sentence.
“What is American culture?” Exactly the problem. No, America was it a melting pot. It has been engineered to be one since roughly the 1960’s. America had a distinct culture. It’s dead.
 
Sorry, not true. It’s not statist v. anarchist. Especially if you’re speaking of Antifa. Antifa ARE statist. They just don’t realize the idiocy of “anarcho-communism”. As if you can have a society that is simultaneously anarchist and communist, lol! You are right about the SOME of the right wing. Some call themselves national socialists. I don’t agree with them either. But not all who would fight for the second A are right-wing statists. Neither is there no such thing as a left wing second a supporter. It’s not a dichotomy. Not at all.
Vault, are you a libertarian capitalist / anarcho-capitalist? Or not? I'm asking to understand what your position is. Mine is libertarian socialist / anarcho-socialist.

And as for Antifa... I'm not a fan of their recent Euro-American incarnation, since they are authoritarian to the core - yet they are not statist. Statism and authotarianism is not synonymous - there is oppression beyond the state, and one can be fighting against the state oppression and yet simultaneosly affirm (or even actively practice) the non-state one. A good example, in my opinion, are anarcho-capitalists, who intend to dismantle the state, with its political oppression, yet are willing to perpetuate corporate-capitalist economic one.

P.S. In 2000s Russia Antifa was quite different from its current pro-non-state-oppression form. These days, the violent - often murderous - gangs of overt Neo-Nazis were the plague of Russian cities, and Antifa squads was a vitally necessary self-defence measure. I can tell it by my own experience - once I was in a millimeter from being brutally beaten by a Neo-Nazi gang, and only saved from that fate by some Antifas who were nearby and were willing to fight for me (and others).

Unfortunately, modern Western Antifas seem to be on the side of aggression against anyone who disagrees with them (even peacefully), not on the one of defence from aggression as old Russian Antifas were.
 
Last edited:
Top